From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Aug 12 2002 - 09:36:50 MDT
On Monday, August 12, 2002, at 03:45 am, Alex Ramonsky wrote:
>> It would be such a simple thing to agree to halt all communication
>> with anybody using personal abuse. Let them post; just don't reply,
>> _Except_ for a cut-off one-liner, such as "This discussion has
>> descended into personal abuse and is no longer a reliable indication
>> of sentient thought. I therefore withdraw." If half a dozen people
>> posted that in reply to abuse, and then _kept their word_ the abuse
>> would have nowhere to go, and the people would have a reputation for
>> competence in communication.
>> Does _this_ really need to be said?
Sadly, I have tried this approach, but it doesn't work. The abuser
usually keeps on abusing. Every one-liner is likely to prompt them to
reiterate their why their viewpoint isn't abuse. Supporters on the
other side of the argument will see such a one-liner itself to be a form
of abuse and an attempt to end their sentient thought. The following
silence will allow them to continue their abuse unabated.
I have not yet found a strategy that works. Logic doesn't work. Peer
pressure doesn't work. More criticism just fans the flames. Less
criticism just allows them to burn unstopped. Debating the issue
doesn't help. People on different sides simply won't agree on who
started it or who is being abusive. Both sides tend to only see abuses
on the opposing sides. Nothing works. Solutions that sound good, like
the one above, assume that most people will agree, but this almost never
happens.
This is the number one problem with this and all such lists.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:01 MST